|
Individual vs Circumstances in History?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sigaba
Metaphorically speaking, just because a basketball player hits a game winning shot, it doesn't mean that his shot won the game.
|
Sigaba,
History classes I recall taught individuals matter less than circumstances or geography. This is pragmatic, but aren't there limits to pragmatism, especially if one considers the multiplying impact for better or worse of an exceptional leader? On the one hand, for example the terms of the Treaty of Versailles likely ensured further German aggression, even if Hitler had been killed in the trenches of WW1. Geography matters too, since the best leader of all time if in Iceland probably wouldn't have a huge world impact.
But then you consider, the strength of a Lincoln in holding the Union together in the bleak days before Gettysburg. Would English resolve during the Blitz been the same under Chamberlain instead of Churchill? Or, along the lines on an individual's impact on history Genghis Khan, a boy thrust into slavery who ended up conquering a vast empire.
I'm not sure how to weigh this equation, but I don't think one should underestimate leadership?
__________________
"Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” -Sir Ernest Shackleton
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” –Greek proverb
Last edited by akv; 02-03-2010 at 16:54.
|